Virginia Consumer Protection Act; professional mold remediators, mold remediation certification.
HB2355 amends Virginia’s Consumer Protection Act to add a new prohibited practice targeting people who sell or offer professional mold remediation services for residential dwellings without holding an IICRC mold remediation certification. The bill also directs the Department of Professional and Occupational Regulation to study the Commonwealth’s mold inspection and mold remediation workforce and report whether licensure or certification standards are justified, including possible education, experience, or exam requirements.
In addition to that new mold-remediation provision, the bill substantially updates the list of practices deemed unlawful under the Consumer Protection Act. It carries forward the existing prohibited-practices framework and adds a new effective-date version of § 59.1-200, expanding the statute with a number of additional consumer-protection violations, including certain disclosure failures, automatic-renewal and recurring-charge requirements, product-safety restrictions, and rules related to hemp, THC, kratom, ignition interlock advertising, and real estate service agreements. The bill is also declared an emergency measure, making the first enactment effective upon passage.
The bill would amend and reenact Virginia Code § 59.1-200, the core prohibited-practices section of the Virginia Consumer Protection Act, by adding professional mold remediation without an IICRC certification as an unlawful consumer practice and by expanding the statute’s list of incorporated violations. Its practical effect is to expose unqualified mold remediators serving residential dwellings to Consumer Protection Act enforcement and to create a state study process that could lead to future licensure or certification requirements for mold inspectors and remediators. It also updates the consumer-protection statute to reflect newer regulatory areas, including subscription cancellation, total-cost disclosure, hemp/THC product labeling and age restrictions, kratom sales, and related business practices affecting consumers and small businesses.
The available record shows no committee transcript and no recorded votes, so there is no documented floor or committee debate to gauge support or opposition. Based on the bill’s structure, the measure appears generally consumer-protective and regulatory in nature, with the mold-remediation provision framed as a quality-and-safety safeguard and the workforce study framed as an evidence-gathering step before any broader licensing decision. The emergency clause suggests the patron viewed at least part of the bill as needing immediate effect.
The main likely point of contention is the new mold-remediation certification requirement, because it effectively treats uncredentialed residential mold-remediation work as a consumer-protection violation while the Department studies whether formal licensure or certification is warranted. That could draw concern from contractors or small businesses about added compliance burdens, barriers to entry, or whether an IICRC certification should be the state’s benchmark. More broadly, the bill’s extensive expansion of § 59.1-200 into areas such as THC products, kratom, automatic renewals, and other regulated markets could prompt debate over whether the Consumer Protection Act is being used as a catch-all enforcement tool rather than a narrower fraud statute.